AAPM Task Group 119 has produced quantitative confidence limits as baseline expectation values for IMRT commissioning. A set of test cases was developed to assess the overall accuracy of planning and delivery of IMRT treatments. Each test uses contours of targets and avoidance structures drawn within rectangular phantoms. These tests were planned, delivered, measured, and analyzed by nine facilities using a variety of IMRT planning and delivery systems. Each facility had passed the Radiological Physics Center credentialing tests for IMRT. The agreement between the planned and measured doses was determined using ion chamber dosimetry in high and low dose regions, film dosimetry on coronal planes in the phantom with all fields delivered, and planar dosimetry for each field measured perpendicular to the central axis. The planar dose distributions were assessed using gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. The mean values and standard deviations were used to develop confidence limits for the test results using the concept confidence limit = /mean/ + 1.96sigma. Other facilities can use the test protocol and results as a basis for comparison to this group. Locally derived confidence limits that substantially exceed these baseline values may indicate the need for improved IMRT commissioning.

No abstract

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) represents one of the most significant technical advances in radiation therapy since the advent of the medical linear accelerator. It allows the clinical implementation of highly conformal nonconvex dose distributions. This complex but promising treatment modality is rapidly proliferating in both academic and community practice settings. However, these advances do not come without a risk. IMRT is not just an add-on to the current radiation therapy process; it represents a new paradigm that requires the knowledge of multimodality imaging, setup uncertainties and internal organ motion, tumor control probabilities, normal tissue complication probabilities, three-dimensional (3-D) dose calculation and optimization, and dynamic beam delivery of nonuniform beam intensities. Therefore, the purpose of this report is to guide and assist the clinical medical physicist in developing and implementing a viable and safe IMRT program. The scope of the IMRT program is quite broad, encompassing multileaf-collimator-based IMRT delivery systems, goal-based inverse treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT with patient-specific quality assurance. This report, while not prescribing specific procedures, provides the framework and guidance to allow clinical radiation oncology physicists to make judicious decisions in implementing a safe and efficient IMRT program in their clinics.

The increasing complexity of modern radiation therapy planning and delivery challenges traditional prescriptive quality management (QM) methods, such as many of those included in guidelines published by organizations such as the AAPM, ASTRO, ACR, ESTRO, and IAEA. These prescriptive guidelines have traditionally focused on monitoring all aspects of the functional performance of radiotherapy (RT) equipment by comparing parameters against tolerances set at strict but achievable values. Many errors that occur in radiation oncology are not due to failures in devices and software; rather they are failures in workflow and process. A systematic understanding of the likelihood and clinical impact of possible failures throughout a course of radiotherapy is needed to direct limit QM resources efficiently to produce maximum safety and quality of patient care. Task Group 100 of the AAPM has taken a broad view of these issues and has developed a framework for designing QM activities, based on estimates of the probability of identified failures and their clinical outcome through the RT planning and delivery process. The Task Group has chosen a specific radiotherapy process required for "intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)" as a case study. The goal of this work is to apply modern risk-based analysis techniques to this complex RT process in order to demonstrate to the RT community that such techniques may help identify more effective and efficient ways to enhance the safety and quality of our treatment processes. The task group generated by consensus an example quality management program strategy for the IMRT process performed at the institution of one of the authors. This report describes the methodology and nomenclature developed, presents the process maps, FMEAs, fault trees, and QM programs developed, and makes suggestions on how this information could be used in the clinic. The development and implementation of risk-assessment techniques will make radiation therapy safer and more efficient.

Approximately 4000 women per year in the United States require radiotherapy during pregnancy. This report presents data and techniques that allow the medical physicist to estimate the radiation dose the fetus will receive and to reduce this dose with appropriate shielding. Out‐of‐beam data are presented for a variety of photon beams, including cobalt‐60 gamma rays and x rays from 4 to 18 MV. Designs for simple and inexpensive to more complex and expensive types of shielding equipment are described. Clinical examples show that proper shielding can reduce the radiation dose to the fetus by 50%. In addition, a review of the biological aspects of irradiation enables estimates of the risks of lethality, growth retardation, mental retardation, malformation, sterility, cancer induction, and genetic defects to the fetus.

This document presents recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) for quality assurance of computed-tomography- (CT) simulators and CT-simulation process. This report was prepared by Task Group No. 66 of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee. It was approved by the Radiation Therapy Committee and by the AAPM Science Council.

The purpose of this article is to review the role of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the standard management of patients with head and neck cancer through a critical review of the pertinent literature. IMRT may result in a dose distribution that is more conformal than that achieved with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D CRT), allowing dose reduction to normal structures and thus decreasing toxicity and possibly enhancing locoregional control through dose escalation. Disadvantages associated with IMRT include increased risk of a marginal miss, decreased dose homogeneity, increased total body dose, and increased labor and expense. Outcomes data after IMRT are limited, and follow-up is relatively short. Locoregional control rates appear to be comparable to those achieved with 3D CRT and, depending on the location and extent of the tumor, late toxicity may be lower. Despite limited data on clinical outcomes, IMRT has been widely adopted as a standard technique in routine practice and clinical trials. The use of IMRT involves a learning curve for the practitioner and will continue to evolve, requiring continuing education and monitoring of outcomes from routine practice. Additional standards pertaining to a variety of issues, including target definitions and dose specification, need to be developed. Phase III trials will better define the role of IMRT in coming years.

The purpose of this study is to establish a comprehensive set of dose measurements data obtained from the X-ray Volumetric Imager (XVI, Elekta Oncology Systems) and the On-Board Imager (OBI, Varian Medical Systems) cone-beam CT (CBCT) systems. To this end, two uniform-density cylindrical acrylic phantoms with diameters of 18 cm (head phantom) and 30 cm (body phantom) were used for all measurements. Both phantoms included ion chamber placement holes in the center and at periphery (2 cm below surface). For the XVI unit, the four standard manufacturer-supplied protocols were measured. For the OBI unit, the full bow tie and half bow tie (and no bow tie) filters were used in combination with the two scanning modes; namely, full-fan and half-fan. The total milliampere x seconds (mA s) setting was also varied for each protocol to establish the linear relationship between the dose deposited and the mA s used (with all other factors being held constant). Half-value layers in aluminum (Al) were also measured for beam characteristic determination. For the XVI unit, the average dose ranged from 0.1 to 3.5 cGy with the highest dose measured using the "prostate" protocol with the body phantom. For the OBI unit, the average dose ranged from 1.1 to 8.3 cGy with the highest dose measured using the full-fan protocol with the head phantom. The measured doses were highly linear as a function of mA s, for both units, where the measurement points followed a linear relationship very closely with R2 > 0.99 for all cases. Half-value layers were between 4.6- and 7.0-mm-Al for the two CBCT units where XVI generally had more penetrating beams at the similar kVp settings. In conclusion, a comprehensive series of dose measurements were performed on the XVI and the OBI CBCT units. In the process, many of the important similarities and differences between the two systems were observed and summarized in this work.